A.M. NO. P-05-1931(FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 02-1470-P) - RITA ONG, VS. DAKILA C. MANALABE, COURT LEGAL RESEARCHER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, BRANCH 31.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, we find respondent guilty of grave misconduct. Considering the gravity of his offense, we are not satisfied with the recommended penalty of suspension. Respondent not only failed to comply with the strict and rigorous standards required of all public officers and employees but worse, his act eroded the faith of the complainant in the judiciary. Thus, he must be punished with maximum severity because all involved in the dispensation of justice must live to the strictest standard of honesty and integrity in the public service. (Gacho vs. Fuentes, Jr. A.M. No. P-98-1265, June 29, 1998) It is respectfully recommended that this case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that the respondent be DISMISSED from service for grave misconduct, with forfeiture of retirement benefits and disqualification for re-employment in government service including government owned and controlled corporations . (Underscoring supplied) This Court appreciates no reason to disturb the findings of investigating Judge Lanzanas which were affirmed by the OCA. Respondents plain denial of the acts imputed to him cannot overcome the categorical and positive declarations made by complainant, her husband, and Garcia that he demanded money from complainant and her spouse with the promise that he would help them seek a favorable judgment for complainants cousin Mario Tan. These declarations constitute substantial evidence required in administrative proceedings. It bears noting that aside from opting not to cross-examine complainant, respondent did not present evidence to corroborate his alibi that he was with an officemate in Branch 31 at the time he was alleged to be again extorting money from complainant and her husband at the City Jail. The image of the court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct of the men and women who work thereat, from the judge to the personnel holding the lowest position. It becomes the imperative and sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a true temple of justice. [19] Respondent failed in this duty. His acts of demanding money from complainant and her husband undoubtedly erode our peoples faith and confidence in the administration of justice. As the offense committed by respondent constitutes a grave misconduct under Section 23(c), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, the commensurate penalty of dismissal, even if committed for the first time, must be meted. WHEREFORE, respondent Dakila C. Manalabe, Court Legal Researcher, Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 31, having been found GUILTY of grave misconduct, is DISMISSED from the service effective immediately, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to his reemployment in any branch or instrumentality in the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations. SO